Adekunbi Ero
The National Legal Adviser of the African Democratic Congress, ADC, and former governor of Edo State, Professor Oserheimen Osunbor has expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would upturn Monday’s Appeal Court, Abuja Division’s judgement which nullified its state congresses, describing it as a disappointment and defying logic.
Osunbor, a professor of constitutional law, insisted that the lead judgement of the three-man panel of the appellate court led by Justice Abba Mohammed but delivered by Justice Okon Abang, was not a true reflection of the law.
TELL reports that the court not only nullified the party’s Congresses but also affirmed the judgement of a Federal High Court which restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from recognising or participating in any state congresses organised by committees appointed by the David Mark-led caretaker committee of the ADC.
If upheld by the Supreme Court, the implication is that the party’s presidential candidate – former vice president Atiku Abubakar and all other candidates would not be on the ballot in the 2027 general elections.
But reacting to the development in an interview on ARISE NEWS interview programme, Prime Time on Monday night, Osunbor faulted the conclusion of the court that state executives of the party ought to have conducted their respective congresses, querying if that made sense.
He said, “My reaction is of course one of disappointment because I thought the issues were very straightforward. But here we are faced with Court of Appeal judgement that, in my opinion, defies logic. I thought it was a straightforward matter. What the Federal High Court decided, Hon. Justice Abdulmalik on the 14th of April was to nullify the congresses on the ground that they were conducted by a committee set up by the National Working Committee of the ADC and that that was wrong; that it is the state executives that should have conducted their own elections. Does that make sense?
“That was the decision – that the plaintiffs and chairmen of political parties are the rightful persons under the constitution of the ADC to have conducted their state congresses. But that defies what we all know as Nigerians. It is the leadership of every political party that conducts congresses. Otherwise, it would be an absurdity to say that a state chairman and members of the state exco should be the ones conducting their own elections.”
On whether there’s anything in the constitution of the ADC that gave substance to the ruling, Osunbor retorted, “absolutely nothing,” but was quick to add that “The only thing the court relied on was a provision in Article 19 paragraph 9 which talks of the responsibilities of the state working committee, and one of them is that it is the business of the state working committee to prepare the agenda for a state congress.”
According to him, “If the court had looked at Article 19 subsection 12 that expressly confers powers on the National Working Committee to dissolve a state exco, appoint any committee of their liking to perform any duty – those are internal management matters of political parties, and they are not justiciable.”
The former governor hailed the minority judgement delivered by the head of the panel, Justice Mohammed, which he noted reflected the true position of the law.
Highlighting the “several errors” in the judgement, he said “The first error is that the federal high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain internal affairs of any political party and that included administration – how do you conduct elections; how do you conduct your businesses – those are internal administrative responsibilities of the party.
“If you listened to the minority judgement, it would be clear to everybody to see that this is really the true position of the law,” stating that the 2 to 1 split judgement should bother Nigerians.
The erudite law teacher believed that just as he predicted correctly that the controversial ‘status quo ante bellum” saga which INEC latched onto to derecognise the ADC would be reversed by the apex court, the present case would suffer the same fate.
“Let me recall that the last time I was here in this studio, we were discussing this status quo ante bellum, and I did express my opinion at that time that that judgement was wrong. That was a unanimous judgement of three justices of the court of appeal, and the Supreme Court said it was wrong. It didn’t lie within them, having decided on that case that the appeal was incompetent, it didn’t lie within their power to now go and be issuing an order based on an appeal that was incompetent.
“So, likewise, I am confident, now that we have an opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court, that the judgement, in my view, is wrong. It is not a correct reflection of the law. In fact, one of the points that the minority judge said is that they didn’t even read the provisions of the ADC constitution; they just picked from that one which says National Working Committee should prepare an agenda and based their decisions only on that.
“The minority judgement said it that the duty of a court in interpreting the constitution of any statute is to read it in its entirety, not to just pick one and shut your eyes against the other.”
Faulting the judges’ verdict that the party violated a subsisting court order restraining it from holding state congresses, Osunbor asserted that an injunction cannot be granted on an action that had already taken place.
According to him, “Well, again, the minority judgement said that court order was delivered on the 14th of April when the national convention was underway and the judgement that was delivered that day didn’t come to our notice until after the national convention.
“You issue an injunction to prevent something from happening. You don’t grant an injunction in respect of a matter that has already taken place. These state congresses have already taken place. The national convention was already underway, and the judge mentioned that even the lead counsel of the plaintiffs, learned silk, told the court that the state congresses had been concluded.
“He told the court that as they were there, ADC was holding its national convention. So, what other proof do you need if the counsel to the plaintiffs admitted before the court that these matters had been concluded? It therefore was not within the province of the court to be granting an injunction to restrain something that had already happened.”
In a veiled reference to the ruling All Progressives Congress, (APC) Osunbor believed that the party’s travails were being orchestrated by “These people that are afraid of democracy; these people that are afraid of opposition; these people that don’t want to face Nigerians in free and fair elections. Nigerians know them – these people.”
WhatsApp us
Comments